![]() ![]() Here's an example of my branches and merges from a recent paper (I use SourceTree on OS X and Git from the command line on Linux). ![]() Perhaps you've added material to section 3 that requires tweaking to section 5… Of course, these will, in all probability, be observed during a careful reading, but I find it helpful to see this at a glance so that I can shift gears if I'm getting bored of a section. I find this very helpful because it keeps the history of the section in its own branch and also tells you at a glance (from the tree) how old some section is. If you need to edit, commit this one and then checkout the other before branching. Resist the urge to edit a different section (say, 3) when you're not on its branch. Spawn a branch when you create a new section or dummy sections when you make your initial commit (your choice, really). I would also suggest splitting each section into a different branch and focus only the section corresponding to the branch that you're on. You can then merge the two and cherry pick what you need. So in such cases, you could create a new branch advisor and make changes to their liking, at the same time maintaining your own development branch. Yet, you might be expected to atleast change them for the time being, even if they are reverted later after discussions. ![]() As any grad student will attest, the advisor is bound to have numerous corrections, most of which you don't agree with. The master branch should be your main body of work, in its most current "ready to publish" state i.e., if of all the branches, if there is one that you are willing to put your name on it, it should be the master branch.īranches are also extremely helpful if you are a graduate student. I've found branches to be very helpful to keep track of "different ideas" for the text or for "different states" of the work. There is perhaps no better advice I can give. This way it is easier for you to edit a localized part of your work, and it is also easier for version control, as you know what changes have been made to each chapter, instead of having to figure it out from the logs of one big file. If you're writing a long document in LaTeX, I'd suggest splitting different chapters into their own files and call them in the main file using the \include command. ![]() git latexdiff HEAD^ to view the diff between your worktree and the last-but-one commit). You can combine git and latexdiff (plus latexpand if needed) in a single command using git-latexdiff (e.g. On the other hand, if you need to look at the diff of your formatted output, use latexdiff which is an excellent utility (written in perl) that takes two latex files and produces a neat diffed output in pdf like this ( image source): See the documentation for more details and also Showing which files have changed between two revisions. To see the difference between two arbitrary commits (versions), you can do so with the shas of each of the commits. If you need to look at the code diff, use Git's native diff. However, I must emphasize that splitting into separate lines is a much better option (I only mentioned it in passing in that answer), as I've found it to result in very minimal merge conflicts. One solution is to use git diff -color-words (see my answer to a similar question How to use Mercurial for version control of text documents? where I show an example). However, in git, changes to a single word in a paragraph get recorded as a change to the entire paragraph. When you write documents in LaTeX, you often think in terms of paragraphs and write it as a free flowing document. Git was written to version control source code, where each line is distinct and has a specific purpose. The first step in efficiently managing a Git LaTeX workflow is to make a few changes to your LaTeX habits.įor starters, write each sentence on a separate line. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |